A Dying World In Need Of a Living God

by Patricia L. Dickson10/29/151 Peter 2:12: Conduct yourselves properly (honorably, righteously) among the Gentiles, so that, although they may slander you as evildoers, [yet] they may by witnessing your good deeds [come to] glorify God in the day of inspection [[e]when God shall look upon you wanderers as a pastor or shepherd looks over his flock].

In the past 50 years, we have experienced an explosion in technology. In fact, in just over a century we have gone from the invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell to the worldwide web (internet). Today we are able to connect and communicate with someone a world away in a matter of seconds. These inventions have enabled people to communicate with family, friends and business associates at any time with little or no cost.

It is God that has endowed men with superior intellect (men are more intelligent than animals) that has enabled individuals to create and invent the technology that we have today. However, because of man’s superior intellect, it opens the door for arrogance and pride to take hold of the human heart. Once the heart is filled with arrogance and pride, one is easily deceived into believing that he or she does not need God (or that there is no God). In fact, many highly intelligent people (especially scientists) rely on their own intelligence and shun religion as something for the weak and ignorant.

So, how do Christians convince a dying sinful corrupt world comprised of some individuals with superior intellect that first, there is a God and, secondly, everyone needs Him?

We start by pointing out the truth of the current condition of humankind. To begin with, although we have all of these technological inventions readily available, our families are still broken. It is reported that between 40-50% of first marriages end in divorce and upward to 60% of second marriages. There has been a 400% increase in antidepressant use in America over the last two decades (antidepressant use does not vary by income status). According to the BBC, nearly 50 million people in England are taking antidepressant drugs. Around 28% of American adults drink at levels that put them at risk for alcohol dependence and alcohol-related problems. Alcoholism is not restricted to any specific socioeconomic group or class. Family members commit approximately 13.6% of murders against other members of their family.

If ever there was a time that the world needed to witness the supernatural power of God, it is the present. The world should be able to examine our lives and see a stark difference in our conduct compared to the way they live their lives. This is certainly not the time for Christians to compromise our behavior to fit in with the world. I ran across an article in Charisma Magazine titled Christians Drinking Beer: Freedom or Folly? The author talked about a specific incident where a female recovering from alcohol addiction attended a supposedly Christian party and witnessed members of the church drinking beer. This individual was turned off by what she witnessed. The author seemed to imply that the lady was looking for an excuse not to follow God:

One time a friend who was visiting a church I used to attend in Florida went to a party on a boat. She was appalled that the people who went to church were drinking beer. She was a recovering alcoholic who struggled in this area and was so turned off that she didn’t come back.

This article isn’t about whether Christians should or should not drink beer. I spent hours trying to explain to my friend that Christians had different standards when it came to drinking alcohol. She didn’t care. She had an excuse to not follow God.

Their freedom turned into their folly.

The article’s main topic is whether a Christian’s freedom should cause a spiritually weaker believer or a nonbeliever to stumble based on (1 Cor. 8:9, NLT). “But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble”. Instead of questioning whether or not a Christian drinking alcohol is freedom or folly, a better question is why a Christian would drink alcohol to begin with? I know some people will say that I am being legalistic by implying that Christians should abstain from alcohol. However; my issue is how else will the world distinguish that we are different from them if we engage in the same behavior as them? Besides, as I noted above, alcohol dependence is on the rise. When does social drinking cross the line to actual dependence? If Christians need a drink every once in a while, how are we any different than the unbeliever? Is Christ not enough?

The carnal things of the world will never satisfy man. God created man so that we would have a void that only He can fill or satisfy. Worldly pleasures will only satisfy for the moment. After a short while, worldly pleasures will no longer satisfy. In fact, they will eventually destroy us. Rev Franklin Graham made the following comments about the recent tragic events that almost destroyed former NBA athlete Lamar Odom:

“Listen up, young men. I’m a father and a grandfather, and I want to give you some advice. Former NBA star Lamar Odom was looking for something at a brothel in Nevada, something to ease the pain and void deep inside his heart. Instead, it has devastated his life. The truth is-the only One that can heal the pain in a human heart is Jesus Christ. Drugs can’t do it, sex can’t do it, money can’t do it, nothing or no one else can do it. I want you to know that God made you and He loves you,” he continued. “He wants to give you life, peace, and hope-and the only way is through trusting in His Son, Jesus Christ. God’s Word warns, “Now then, my sons, listen to me; pay attention to what I say. Do not let your heart turn to her (a prostitute’s) ways or stray into her paths. Many are the victims she has brought down; her slain are a mighty throng” (Proverbs 7:24-26).”

It is time for Christians to stand up and boldly declare (with our lives and mouths) that Jesus is the answer to all that ails humankind. The world is in need of a powerful living God.

4 Responses to A Dying World In Need Of a Living God

I enjoy reading articles such as this, if only because of the clarity and focus. Yes, it’s an overall article which perhaps makes it a bit easier. I’d love to see Patricia parse the various aspects of Christian living as it pertains to: families, education, work, recreation, community, friends, and hobbies. I believe there is a real and substantial — and better — difference between that and what I see as the rot-gut secular way of being.

Reading about the various aspects of Christianity, as I have done through the years, you’ll run into a lot of what I would call institutional superstition. But I think what Patricia describes is living as a disciple, not simply putting on the Sunday best once a week or spreading around a lot of showy “God bless you’s”.

Her message and attitude, so far as I can see, are the correct one. It’s one thing to treat Christianity as an affectation or light veneer sprinkled over our lives. It’s another thing to actually believe that there is a Creator and a plan for our lives…that there is more than just nihilism, randomness, and pointlessness.

There is a real difference whether you choose Marxism/materialism or deep meaningfulness for your way of being. And Patricia is right that the wonders of modern technology have infused man with an excess of pride. As even Darth Vader said, “Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.”

All of our technology, as nice as much of it is, is nothing compared to the airier, higher, and more meaningful aspects of life. Our technocratic culture has tended to reduce us to mere consumers. We profess that we are smarter because we profess faith in “science” even though science is full of political charlatans and “science” has nothing, in principle, to say about any aspect of life but the purely material. This is surely why the reduced head and heart of modern man finds it so appealing to worship at the altar of technology. We can believe it is all we need. We can sanctify the vulgar and profane.

I understand tranquilizers are free in Britain under their National Health Service (you can have free tranks or enough dialysis machines — and a lot more people benefit from the former), which certainly would lead to increased use. As for Christians drinking, I will note that Jesus certainly didn’t reject the consumption, at the least, of win 9as in the wedding feast at Cana or the Last Supper). Excessive drinking, or dependence on alcohol, would be another matter (and I have witnessed that in several people, which no doubt is one reason I’m a teetotaler).

I think Patricia stated the case beautifully about alcohol without seeming like a purist or fundamentalist. There’s the sense of sacred one must, or should, carry around with oneself if one truly believes in other than nihilism/randomness/pointlessness. It’s not about being perfect. It’s about reflecting and supporting the attitudinal change that ought to be there.

I think that is a terrific bit of scripture she quoted: “But you must be careful so that your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble”.

As adults who acquire (eventually) wisdom, we can read about Jesus drinking wine and know that moderation is okay. But many more would read that as simple license to do such and such, reading Jesus legalistically. I won’t stuff words in Patricia’s mouth, but I think this is an important distinction and, well, why not err on the side of non-Bacchanalia?

Brad Nelson : This chat box does seem to work. I liked that other one I had (Quick Chat) better because it allowed you (or at least me) to delete specific chats (especially when just testing). But Quick Chat would

pst4usa : This is my test of your chat box Brad. Have a good night.

pst4usa : By the way Brad, the letter to the editor I sent in was rejected, too long, and too harsh, so I had to rewrite it.

Brad Nelson : Hi, Pat. Your letter was terrific. Perhaps we could work it here as an article. Thanks for testing the chat. My previous chat post was cut off. I have since increased the max length to 500 characters. That ought to work even for me!

Timothy Lane : I hadn't known there was a character limit. I don't recall ever encountering it, which for me is surprising. I believe you now allow more than Twitter. And one can always continue comments through more than one posting.

Brad Nelson : The character limit can be set on the back end. Like most things these days, everything probably starts out hardened against the typical spam that bots spew out.

Timothy Lane : It's always nice to see someone catch up to us. I've said for years that leftism infantilizes people, with spoiled brat archetype Veruca Salt as the model for many leftists. But in an article dated today, listing the Boeing 737 as one of the good things capitalism produces may be unwise. The latest I've seen blames the crash on the autopilot, which apparently takes over too quickly and has a problem with takeoffs.

Brad Nelson : Yeah...Boing could have some kind of computer glitch going there. Yikes. I think at some point these systems become so complicated, nobody really understand them. I know this is true of computer operating systems which is why changing them can be so difficult.

Timothy Lane : This is a point Trump made recently, and that was before they read the black box. As a programmer, I know just how difficult this can be. When you do an operation thousands of times a day, the error rate must be phenomenally low because an error can lead to a serious blow-up. This is even worse with autopilots and self-driving cars than it is with factory automation or dairy cow feeding.

Brad Nelson : Yes, Timothy. Finding an error in code can be difficult. These errors can be found and it’s likely that, long-term, a code running an airplane will be safer than even the best pilot. But whether too many martinis-and-stewardesses or undetected bugs, there are risks with both.

Timothy Lane : It seems the plane that crashed almost crashed in the same situation the day before. Luckily they had a pilot on hand who knew how to fight the autopilot and win. Next day they didn't.

Timothy Lane : Mistakes happen, but this does seem odd. Apparently the autopilot takes control after takeoff and then reacts to the fast rise by trying to lower the plane. How on Earth did no one ever notice this?

Brad Nelson : That does seem odd. I guess they notice it now. One has to wonder how the actual implementation in planes differs from what had to be a lot of testing in simulators.

Timothy Lane : Just think: Will self-driving cars work better than Boeing 737 autopilots? At least with the latter, someone can gain control from the bot. And that doesn't even take into account hacking the cars, as has been done as a test.

Brad Nelson : Thanks for the link. I guess that's an appropriate cartoon. I was also thinking, Timothy, that this whole problem with the systems in the plane is like that Star Trek episode where they had trouble disengaging the M-5 multitronic computer in order to regain control of the Enterprise.

Timothy Lane : That was the very first episode of Star Trek I ever saw. The fact that it was about a computer interested me. The show quickly became a favorite, of course.